Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19675 

cotton classification requested by 

producers in 2006. Therefore, the 2007 

producer’s user fee for classification 

service is based on the 2006 base fee for 

HVI classification. 

The fee was calculated by applying 

the formula specified in the Uniform 

Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as 

amended by Public Law 102–237. The 

2006 base fee for HVI classification 

exclusive of adjustments, as provided by 

the Act, was $2.45 per bale. An increase 

of 2.82 percent, or 7 cents per bale, due 

to the implicit price deflator of the gross 

domestic product added to the $2.45 

would result in a 2007 base fee of $2.52 

per bale. The formula in the Act 

provides for the use of the percentage 

change in the implicit price deflator of 

the gross national product (as indexed 

for the most recent 12-month period for 

which statistics are available). However, 

gross national product has been 

replaced by gross domestic product by 

the Department of Commerce as a more 

appropriate measure for the short-term 

monitoring and analysis of the U.S. 

economy. 

The number of bales to be classed by 

the United States Department of 

Agriculture from the 2007 crop is 

estimated at 19,900,000 bales. The 2007 

base fee was decreased 15 percent based 

on the estimated number of bales to be 

classed (1 percent for every 100,000 

bales or portion thereof above the base 

of 12,500,000, limited to a maximum 

decreased adjustment of 15 percent). 

This percentage factor amounts to a 38 

cents per bale reduction and was 

subtracted from the 2007 base fee of 

$2.52 per bale, resulting in a fee of $2.14 

per bale. 

However, with a fee of $2.14 per bale, 

the projected operating reserve would 

be 37.2 percent. The Act specifies that 

the Secretary shall not establish a fee 

which, when combined with other 

sources of revenue, will result in a 

projected operating reserve of more than 

25 percent. Accordingly, the fee of $2.14 

must be reduced by 29 cents per bale, 

to $1.85 per bale, to provide an ending 

accumulated operating reserve for the 

fiscal year of not more than 25 percent 

of the projected cost of operating the 

program. This would establish the 2007 

season fee at $1.85 per bale. 

Accordingly, § 28.909, paragraph (b) 

would reflect the continuation of the 

HVI classification fee at $1.85 per bale. 

As provided for in the Uniform Cotton 

Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended, 

a 5 cent per bale discount would 

continue to be applied to voluntary 

centralized billing and collecting agents 

as specified in § 28.909 (c). 

Growers or their designated agents 

receiving classification data would 

continue to incur no additional fees if 

classification data is requested only 

once. The fee for each additional 

retrieval of classification data in 

§ 28.910 would remain at 5 cents per 

bale. The fee in § 28.910 (b) for an 

owner receiving classification data from 

the National database would remain at 

5 cents per bale, and the minimum 

charge of $5.00 for services provided per 

monthly billing period would remain 

the same. The provisions of § 28.910 (c) 

concerning the fee for new classification 

memoranda issued from the National 

database for the business convenience of 

an owner without reclassification of the 

cotton will remain the same at 15 cents 

per bale or a minimum of $5.00 per 

sheet. 

The fee for review classification in 

§ 28.911 would be maintained at $1.85 

per bale. 

The fee for returning samples after 

classification in § 28.911 would remain 

at 40 cents per sample. 

A 15-day comment period is provided 

for public comments. This period is 

appropriate because it is anticipated 

that the proposed changes, if adopted, 

would be made effective July 1, 2007, as 

provided by the Cotton Statistics and 

Estimates Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 28 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Cotton, Cotton samples, 

Grades, Market news, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Standards, 

Staples, Testing, Warehouses. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 28 is proposed to 

be amended to read as follows: 

PART 28—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 28, subpart D, continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 471–476. 

2. In § 28.909, paragraph (b) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 28.909 Costs. 

* * * * * 

(b) The cost of High Volume 

Instrument (HVI) cotton classification 

service to producers is $1.85 per bale. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 28.911, the last sentence of 

paragraph (a) is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 28.911 Review classification. 

(a) * * * The fee for review 

classification is $1.85 per bale. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 13, 2007. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–7401 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD09–07–012] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Great Lakes Naval 

Training Center Harbor, North Chicago, 

IL 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a temporary safety zone 

around Great Lakes Naval Training 

Center Harbor. This zone is intended to 

control the movement of vessels on 

portions of Lake Michigan and Great 

Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor 

during the Spill of National Significance 

(SONS) exercise on June 19 and 20, 

2007. This zone is necessary to protect 

the public from the hazards associated 

with ships and boats deploying oil 

containment equipment. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

May 4, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments 

and related material to Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan 

(spw), 2420 South Lincoln Memorial 

Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53207. The Sector 

Lake Michigan Prevention Department 

maintains the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, will 

become part of this docket and will be 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Sector Lake Michigan Prevention 

Department between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

CWO Brad Hinken, Prevention 

Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake 

Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747–

7154. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
19676 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

comments and related material. If you 

do so, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking [CGD09–07–012], 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. Please submit all comments 

and related material in an unbound 

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, 

suitable for copying. If you would like 

to know they reached us, please enclose 

a stamped, self-addressed postcard or 

envelope. We will consider all 

comments and material received during 

the comment period. We may change 

this proposed rule in view of them. 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for a meeting by writing to the Sector 

Lake Michigan Prevention Department 

at the address under ADDRESSES

explaining why one would be 

beneficial. If we determine that one 

would aid this rulemaking, we will hold 

one at a time and place announced by 

a later notice in the Federal Register. 

Regulatory Information 

The comment period for this rule is 

only 15 days because the request for the 

safety zone was not received in time to 

allow for a longer period. Delaying this 

rule would be contrary to the public 

interest of ensuring the safety of vessels 

during this event and immediate action 

is necessary to prevent possible loss of 

life or property. 

Background and Purpose 

This temporary safety zone is 

necessary to ensure the safety of vessels 

and people from hazards associated 

with numerous vessels deploying oil 

containment booms and conducting 

diving operations. Based on experiences 

in other Captain of the Port zones, the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has 

determined numerous vessels engaged 

in the deployment of oil containment 

booms in close proximity to watercraft 

pose significant risk to public safety and 

property. The likely combination of 

large numbers of recreation vessels and 

congested waterways could result in 

serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing 

a safety zone to control vessel 

movement around the location of the 

SONS exercise will help ensure the 

safety of persons and property at these 

events and help minimize the associated 

risks. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

A temporary safety zone is necessary 

to ensure the safety of vessels during the 

deployment and recovery of oil 

containment booms in conjunction with 

the SONS exercise. The safety zone will 

be enforced between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. 

local time, each day, on June 19 and 20, 

2007. 

The safety zone for the SONS exercise 

will encompass all waters of Lake 

Michigan and Great Lakes Naval 

Training Center Harbor from the 

shoreline to 2,200 yards east, 1,900 

yards north, and 2,900 yards south of 

Great Lakes Light 2 (Lightlist number 

20285) and bounded by a line with of 

point origin at 42°20′12′′ N, 087°48′ W; 

then west to 42°20′12′′ N, 087°50′ W; 

then south to 42°17′ N, 087°50′ W; then 

east to 42°17′ N, 087°48′ W; then north 

to the point of origin (NAD 83). 

All persons and vessels shall comply 

with the instructions of the Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port or the designated onscene representative. Entry into, 

transiting, or anchoring within the 

safety zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan or his designated onscene representative. The Captain of the 

Port or his designated on-scene 

representative may be contacted via 

VHF Channel 16. 

Regulatory Evaluation 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office 

of Management and Budget has not 

reviewed it under that Order. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. 

The Coast Guard will only enforce 

this safety zone for 10 hours a day on 

the two days specified. This safety zone 

has been designed to allow vessels to 

transit unrestricted to portions of the 

harbor not affected by the zone. The 

Captain of the Port will allow vessels to 

enter and depart Great Lakes Naval 

Training Center Harbor. The Coast 

Guard expects insignificant adverse 

impact to mariners from the activation 

of this zone. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

This proposed rule would affect the 

following entities, some of which might 

be small entities: The owners of vessels 

intending to transit or anchor in a 

portion of Great Lakes Naval Training 

Center Harbor between 8 a.m. and 6 

p.m., local time, on June 19, 2007 and 

June 20, 2007. The safety zone would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

for the following reasons. This rule 

would be in effect for only 20 hours. 

Vessel traffic can safely pass around the 

safety zone and enter and depart Great 

Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor 

upon request. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact CWO Brad 

Hinken, Prevention Department, Coast 

Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 

Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747–7154. The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19677 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this proposed rule would not 

result in such an expenditure, we do 

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not effect a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty 

rights of Native American Tribes. 

Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed 

to working with Tribal Governments to 

implement local policies and to mitigate 

tribal concerns. We have determined 

that these special local regulations and 

fishing rights protection need not be 

incompatible. We have also determined 

that this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it does not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Nevertheless, Indian Tribes that have 

questions concerning the provisions of 

this proposed rule or options for 

compliance are encourage to contact the 

point of contact listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that there are no factors in this case that 

would limit the use of a categorical 

exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 

Instruction. Therefore, we believe that 

this rule should be categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g) of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation because 

this proposed rule establishes a safety 

zone. 

A preliminary ‘‘Environmental 

Analysis Check List’’ is available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 

will be considered before we make the 

final decision on whether this rule 

should be categorically excluded from 

further environmental review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.T09–012 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–012 Safety Zone; Great Lakes 

Naval Training Center Harbor, North 

Chicago, IL. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

temporary safety zone: All waters of 

Lake Michigan and Great Lakes Naval 

Training Center Harbor, from surface to 

bottom, from the shoreline to 2,200 

yards east, 1,900 yards north, and 2,900 

yards south of Great Lakes Light 2 

(Lightlist number 20285) and bounded 

by a line with of point origin at 

42°20′12′′ N, 087°48′ W; then west to 

42°20′12′′ N, 087°50′ W; then south to 

42°17′ N, 087°50′ W; then east to 42°17′ 

N, 087°48′ W; then north to the point of 

origin (NAD 83). 

(b) Effective period. This regulation is 

effective from 8 a.m. (local) on June 19, 

2007 to 6 p.m. (local) on June 20, 2007. 

This regulation will be enforced from 8 

a.m. (local) to 6 p.m. (local) on June 19, 

2007 and from 8 a.m. (local) to 6 p.m. 

(local) on June 20, 2007. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in section 165.23 

of this part, entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring within this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or 

his designated on-scene representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan or his designated onscene representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port is any Coast 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
19678 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 75 / Thursday, April 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer who has been designated by the 

Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 

The on-scene representative of the 

Captain of the Port will be aboard either 

a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary 

vessel. The Captain of the Port or his 

designated on-scene representative may 

be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone must 

contact the Captain of the Port Lake 

Michigan or his on-scene representative 

to obtain permission to do so. Vessel 

operators given permission to enter or 

operate in the safety zone must comply 

with all directions given to them by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his 

on-scene representative. 

Dated: April 3, 2007. 

Bruce C. Jones, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. E7–7416 Filed 4–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS